In his written judgment, which has just been released, he said: "The respondent [the Home Office] does not appear to have taken into account that the singular basis, namely one of protest, and that in normal circumstances there is a public interest in providing a platform for protest at both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights".

Media attention

He added that the Home Office, "should have made a fair, proportionate and balanced decision, taking into account the character of the appellant and his contribution to society, and it does not appear that this has happened.

"It would appear that the decision is based exclusively on this one incident which had attracted huge amounts of publicity and media attention."

The tribunal was handed a petition with signatures from 265 Cambridge and Oxford staff and students who did not want Mr Oldfield to be deported.

Representing Mr Oldfield, Stephanie Harrison QC said her client's good work in the community outweighed the one protest incident.

Mr Oldfield also told the tribunal that if he was forced to leave the UK he could not take his wife, Deepa Naik, who is of Indian descent, or his daughter back with him because Australians were "passive aggressive" racists.

Judge Moore said this was not a factor in making his decision, however.

A Home Office spokesman said it was considering appealing against the decision, adding: "Those who come to the UK must abide by our laws.

"We had refused this individual leave to remain because we did not believe his presence in this country was conducive to the public good."